[PATCH 3/3] media: staging: rkisp1: params: in 'stop_streaming' don't release the lock while returning buffers

[Tomasz Figa]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:04 PM Dafna Hirschfeld
<dafna.hirschfeld at collabora.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 26.06.20 um 16:03 schrieb Tomasz Figa:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:32 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy at arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Dafna,
> >>
> >> On 2020-06-25 18:42, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote:
> >>> In the stop_streaming callback 'rkisp1_params_vb2_stop_streaming'
> >>> there is no need to release the lock 'config_lock' and then acquire
> >>> it again at each iteration when returning all buffers.
> >>> This is because the stream is about to end and there is no need
> >>> to let the isr access a buffer.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld at collabora.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    drivers/staging/media/rkisp1/rkisp1-params.c | 7 +------
> >>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/rkisp1/rkisp1-params.c b/drivers/staging/media/rkisp1/rkisp1-params.c
> >>> index bf006dbeee2d..5169b02731f1 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/staging/media/rkisp1/rkisp1-params.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/media/rkisp1/rkisp1-params.c
> >>> @@ -1488,19 +1488,13 @@ static void rkisp1_params_vb2_stop_streaming(struct vb2_queue *vq)
> >>>        /* stop params input firstly */
> >>>        spin_lock_irqsave(&params->config_lock, flags);
> >>>        params->is_streaming = false;
> >>> -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&params->config_lock, flags);
> >>>
> >>>        for (i = 0; i < RKISP1_ISP_PARAMS_REQ_BUFS_MAX; i++) {
> >>> -             spin_lock_irqsave(&params->config_lock, flags);
> >>>                if (!list_empty(&params->params)) {
> >>>                        buf = list_first_entry(&params->params,
> >>>                                               struct rkisp1_buffer, queue);
> >>>                        list_del(&buf->queue);
> >>> -                     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&params->config_lock,
> >>> -                                            flags);
> >>>                } else {
> >>> -                     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&params->config_lock,
> >>> -                                            flags);
> >>>                        break;
> >>>                }
> >>
> >> Just skimming through out of idle curiosity I was going to comment that
> >> if you end up with this pattern:
> >>
> >>          if (!x) {
> >>                  //do stuff
> >>          } else {
> >>                  break;
> >>          }
> >>
> >> it would be better as:
> >>
> >>          if (x)
> >>                  break;
> >>          //do stuff
> >>
> >> However I then went and looked at the whole function and frankly it's a
> >> bit of a WTF. As best I could decipher, this whole crazy loop appears to
> >> be a baroque reinvention of:
> >>
> >>          list_for_each_entry_safe(&params->params, ..., buf) {
> >>                  list_del(&buf->queue);
> >>                  vb2_buffer_done(&buf->vb.vb2_buf, VB2_BUF_STATE_ERROR);
> >>          }
> >>
> >> (assuming from context that the list should never contain more than
> >> RKISP1_ISP_PARAMS_REQ_BUFS_MAX entries in the first place)
> >
> > Or if we want to avoid disabling the interrupts for the whole
> > iteration, we could use list_splice() to move all the entries of
>
> Hi, list_splice combines two lists together, I guess you meant list_cut_position
> which cut a list into two

No, I meant list_splice() and it does the expected thing here. It adds
all the elements from one list (the list argument) to another list
(the head argument). Since an element can't be on two lists at the
same time, the first list is rendered invalid.

Best regards,
Tomasz